Citing the deadline, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Nirvana violated child pornography laws by placing a naked baby on the cover of the band’s popular album. Never mind – but he still gives the whistleblower one more chance to unravel the case.
Spencer Elden – the 30-year-old man appears in the image as a child – band event in August, argued that the iconic album cover contained “commercial sexual exploitation” of minors. Band move to throw case last month, arguing that it was filed years too late.
Elden’s attorneys have until December 30 to respond, but according to Judge Fernando M. Olguin’s Monday ruling, they never did.
“Plaintiff has not raised any objections to the defendant’s motion,” the judge wrote. “Accordingly, the court will… make the defendant’s proposal.”
The layoffs are not final. The judge gave Elden “one last chance” to redo the case “if the plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action.” But he warned that failure to respond would result in a permanent dismissal of the case.
Originally released on September 24, 1991, Never mind reached the top of the Billboard 200 in January 1992 and eventually spent 554 weeks on the chart. The album has sold over 30 million copies and is considered by many to be one of the most influential in the history of popular music.
The album cover – an image of a naked child swimming in a pool chasing a dollar on a hook – has long been interpreted as a critique of greed and capitalism. But in his lawsuit, Elden insists this is a form of “pornographic” display of minors prohibited under federal child pornography law.
“Spencer’s real identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor.
In addition to the legal entity Nirvana, Elden’s lawsuit also names the properties of Kurt Cobain, Universal Music Group, Dave Grohl, and a number of other companies and individuals.
Child pornography laws cover sexually explicit images of minors, but these laws generally do not apply to more innocent nude images of children, such as a piece of art or a photo of a child’s home. a child in the bathtub. The final question in the potential case would be whether Nirvana’s image of Elden resembles the former or the latter.
But before that, Nirvana argued last month that the case had a more fundamental flaw: It was filed years after the 10-year statute of limitations for such allegations expired, by a man who had long ago hug photo.
The band wrote, “Elden has spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as ‘Nirvana Baby,'” the band wrote and asked Judge Olguin to drop the case. “He has been fully aware of the facts of both the alleged ‘breach’ and the ‘injury’ for decades.”
According to Monday’s ruling, Elden has until January 13 to redo the case. An attorney for Elden did not return a request for comment on Tuesday.
https://www.billboard.com/pro/nirvana-lawsuit-naked-baby-album-cover-nevermind-baby/ Nirvana Beats Over Naked Baby Album Cover – For Now – Billboard